Women on boards - Article de Beaufort&Summers

Journal of Research in Gender Studies
Volume 4(1), 2014, pp. 101–140, ISSN: 2164-0262
Women on Boards: Sharing a Rigorous Vision
of the Functioning of Boards, Demanding
a New Model of Corporate Governance
101
VIVIANE DE BEAUFORT
Beaufort@essec.fr
ESSEC Business School
LUCY SUMMERS
lucy.summers@uqconnect.edu.au
University of Queensland
ABSTRACT. This study offers Executives and Policy Makers a thorough analysis
of the most current data from international organizations and consulting firms, as
well empirical evidence from interviews of women 50 executive women who hold
mandates on Boards around the globe, on the increasing economic importance of
greater gender diversity on Boards. A discussion of the various feasible “strategies”
currently being proposed and adopted by different countries and other concerned
parties and organizations to increase female Board representation suggests that
progress is in sight, but that there are many obstacles to be remedied if women are
to be a real engine for a more effective Corporate Governance of Boards. The study
provides empirical support that women must be encouraged to bring, in terms of
skills and behaviors, a difference to the table if “gender diversity” measures are to
have positive and genuine change in the exercise of effective Corporate Governance
practices internationally. The study highlights that current and potential female
candidates share a rigorous vision of the functioning of Boards and therefore demand
a new model of governance based on sustainability, which integrates both masculine
and feminine “polarities” within companies and organizations.
Keywords: International Corporate Governance; Board Diversification; evolution of
models of governance; women and boards; non-executive board
members; gender dimension
RESEARCH QUESTION/ISSUE: The study first seeks to better understand
and classify the “added value” effects and economic implications that may
plausibly result from a significant push towards increased gender diversity
on Boards. Most crucially, the study seeks to identify the paradigm shifts in

the governance of Boards offered by an increased representation of women
on Boards, and endeavors to propose a new model that will satisfy their
understanding of good governance. Finally, this study endeavors to uncover
some of the reasons behind the lack of progress over the past 50 years,
looking at both the individual and societal issues and obstacles pertinent to
those women who desire such mandates, and in turn seeks to understand
and evaluate the best measures being proposed internationally in order to
overcome said obstacles.
METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH FINDINGS: An analysis of the latest
data from international consulting and statistical agencies, as well as inter-views
of 50 women who hold mandates on Boards around the globe,
concluded that a significant increase in the number of women on Boards (a
representation of at least a third of the Board composition) would bring
“diversity” to the Board, enabling a positive and genuine change in the
exercise of effective Corporate Governance practices internationally. Further-more,
the study provides empirical support that women must be allowed to
bring, in terms of skills and behaviors, a difference to the table if “gender
diversity” measures are to have any real, positive impact on the governance
and decision-making of Boards.
The study highlights the fact that current and potential female can-didates
share a rigorous and idealized vision of the functioning of Boards
and therefore demand a new model of governance based on sustainability.
The study therefore supports the development of a mixed power model that
integrates both masculine and feminine “polarities” within companies and
organizations.
The implications of such findings subsequently called for an analysis of
the literature on the obstacles standing in the way of this goal of increased
female representation on Boards. A discussion of the various feasible solu-tions
to such obstacles currently being proposed and adopted by different
countries and other concerned parties/organizations suggests that progress
is in sight, but that there are many obstacles to be remedied if women are to
be a real engine for a more effective Corporate Governance of Boards.
IMPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH FINDINGS: This study offers executives
and policy-makers a thorough analysis of the most current international
statistics and empirical data (including interviews of women 50 executive
women who hold mandates on Boards around the globe) vis-à-vis the
increasing economic importance of gender diversity on Boards. Given the
current economic climate, the importance of reversing the trend of high
employee disengagement has become one of utmost relevance in Corporate
Governance discussions, and the evidence points to a mixed leadership style
as the key to reversing this costly trend. Finally, the focused analysis on the
102

“success” of respective policy options will enable policy makers to make
better informed policy decisions in the future, and the extent that these
considerations should be employed to properly achieve the overall goal of
more effective Corporate Governance on Boards.
1. Introduction
“The corporate world is a place of societal and social power...” (Eugene
Enriquez, Power and desire Games in the Company, 2007); it is a place of
conflicts of power, and even conflicts between people. Most of these con-flicts
are regulated, more or less effectively, by so-called good governance
standards. Among the many issues that arise in the quest for greater effici-ency
of governance is that the “feminization” of Boards has the potential to
be a significant and potential lever of change. Indeed, since more and more
women have slowly been brought into positions of power within companies,
inquires into the presence and progress of women on boards (Board of
Directors, but also within Executive and Management Committees) will
become more commonplace, the sources of such inquires coming from:
• State intervention with the introduction of mandatory quotas (also referred to as
“feminization” laws). Examples include Norway, France, Italy and Belgium (with
sanctions), and the Netherlands and Spain (without sanctions).
• Good governance practices – e.g. the German Corporate Governance Code 2010
– Section 4.1.5, or the Finnish Corporate Governance Code 2008 – Recommen-dation
9, the recently reformed UK Corporate Governance Code.1
• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Considerations: The Organization for Econ-omic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines integrate the perspective of
gender diversity as a good governance practice; Global Compact of the UN pro-motes
CSR, and included in its general principles is the goal of eliminating gender
discrimination in the workforce.
• Pressure generated by rankings, ethical pension funds and the media.
• The efforts of European Institutions: the “incentives,” and the publishing of reports
which has culminated in a draft directive which sets a target of 40% women among
non-executive directors of listed companies by 2020.2
This initiation and progression of gender diversity now raises questions
about the exercise of power within Boards. How do women interpret their
position? Do they have the opportunity to position themselves differently,
to promote different values or other management practices, in turn creating
a mixed model incorporating the female quotient? (Arcier, 2002).
The existence of a specific gender dimension is controversial. As the
executive search firm Heidrick & Struggles (2011) pointed out, some people,
including women, refuse to attribute certain qualities or behaviors as spe-cific
to women: “There is a question about whether women bring another
103

perspective to the team. This prompts the question as to what extent they
really bring diversity. Most of women would find it insulting to be ap-proached
for a board seat on the sole or primary basis of gender.”
However, the Human Resources literature identifies that the female gen-der
possess a leadership style, as well as intuitive and moral qualities that
are indeed different (Dugas, 2007), such as empathy, teamwork, emotional
intelligence, courage, caution and/or risk aversion and common sense...
Adopting this perspective, we pose as a postulate that the collective in-telligence
of the whole group can be increased if women accessing positions
of power maintain these supposed “specific” qualities (Woolley, Chabris,
Pentland, Hashmi and Malone, 2010).
However, there is a risk of conformism: for a long time the work of
Serge Moscovici has established that a minority group (below a proportion
of one-third) adopts a conformist reflex or assimilation to the majority
group (Sarfati & Gattegno, 2007). In addition, the default stereotypes that
surround exercising a leadership position makes this a complex accession
to power: “The stereotype that associates men with the skills related to
authority and leadership makes it difficult for women in positions of lead-ership
and power, and women therefore tend to censor themselves or start
behaving according to these ideals, meaning that they adopt male behav-iors
…” (Chevalier and Khadir, 2012).
Therefore, if “gender diversity” measures are to have any real, positive
impact on the governance and decision-making of Boards, women must be
allowed to bring, in terms of skills and behaviors, a difference to the table.
It is evident that current and potential female candidates share a rigorous
and idealized vision of the functioning of Boards, and therefore demand a
new model of governance based on sustainability. The development of a
mixed power model, which integrates both masculine and feminine “polar-ities”
within companies and organizations, should therefore be at the fore-front
of policy-makers and executives’ minds when considering the practical
changes to governance required if we are to benefit from increased gender
diversity on Boards.
2. The Rise of the Number of Women on Boards
Is Still Insufficient, Facing These Stereotypes
2.1 Some figures and facts
2.1.1. Extremely slow progress on a global scale
The latest survey by GMI Ratings (2013) on data for almost 6,000 com-panies
in 45 countries reveals “women now hold 11% of board seats at the
104

world’s largest and best-known companies. This marks an increase of one-half
of a percentage point since December 2011 and only 1.7 percentage
points since 2009.”
2.1.2. A lag in the number of female university graduates and their career
30 years after graduation.
The number of female university graduates has largely increased to represent
more than half of the total graduates, yet the number of women in executive
committees in Europe over the next 30 years will not increase at all in the
same proportion, revealing non-linear gaps in career progression (Graph 1).
GRAPH 1:
Trajectories of women on executive committees
30 years after graduating from university
1970s, 2000s and a linear projection for 2040
Source: McKinsey & Company, Women Matter 2010
2.1.3. Emerging markets lagging even further behind
Globally, women continue to make up a higher percentage of directors in
developed markets. Recent data shows that, in emerging markets, the repre-sentation
of a single female voice on a Board is still a rarity (Graph 2).
Moreover, with recent progress in developed countries, this gap is becom-ing
105
increasingly apparent.

GRAPH 2: Proportion of companies with one or more women on the board
(end-2005 vs end-2011) by region
Source: Credit Suisse AG (Research Institute), 2012
2.2. The ‘blocking’ factors
2.2.1 Default stereotypes
“There still exists prejudice about women in top positions – it is hard to
break through the ceiling”, Isla Ramos Chavez.
Valerie Rocoplan, Executive Management Coach, explains (2012): “The
glass ceiling is the result of many intertwined causes. [...] Of all these
causes, one of the most important and yet most complex to solve is the
prejudices and stereotypes that women face,” notably:
1. Women are less available (to invest themselves in their work)
2. They lack leadership
3. Leading is a man’s job.
In fact, research into stereotypes identifies inaccuracies concerning the so-called
negative managerial skills of women. A study by “IMS-Entreprendre
pour la Cite” (Chevalier and Khadir 2012) from interviews of 908 male and
female managers were able to confirm the existence of gender stereotypes:
44% of the male managers and 51% of the female managers surveyed,
106

concluded that men and women have different professional skills. Men
represent authority and leadership, women: listening and empathy. These
stereotypes therefore serve as a hindrance for women aspiring to positions
of power. Thus, women have a more complicated, less obvious relationship
with power.
Research has consistently shown that as a woman becomes more “power-ful,”
she becomes less liked, while, on the other hand, as a man climbs the
corporate ladder, he becomes more liked! Why is there a negative cor-relation
between power and likability for women?
Sheryl Sandberg3 argues that this is a consequence of negative gender
stereotypes propagated by our society since childhood, but that this can be
changed: “the more we have women who are leaders, the more we will start
to associate leadership characterizes with women, and the less we will be
inclined to call our little girls bossy. With every woman who channels her
inner self-confidence, and then puts her hand up to be part of a decision-making
body, we do our part to change these negative stereotypes.”
A recent survey of 7280 leaders by Zenger Folkman (2012) revealed
that, at all levels, women scored better on 12 of the 16 skills that constitute
exceptional leadership. As demonstrated in Table 1, women also “out-scored”
men in qualities that have long been considered male strengths,
notably being able to – take Initiative and – Drive for results. It was noted
that men “outscored” women significantly on one single management skill
– the ability to develop a strategic perspective. According to Jack Zenger
and Joseph Folkman (2012), this is simply due to the fact that “Top leaders
always score significantly higher in this competency; since more top leaders
are men, men still score higher here in the aggregate. But when we measure
only men and women in top management on strategic perspective, their
relative scores are the same.”
TABLE 1: Skills and competences required by Leaders
Competence Male mean (%) Female mean (%)
Takes Initiative 48 56
Practices Self-Development 48 55
Displays High Integrity and Honesty 48 55
Drives for Results 48 54
Develops Others 48 54
Inspires and Motivates Others 49 54
Builds Relationships 49 54
Collaboration and Teamwork 49 53
Establishes Stretch Goals 49 53
Champions Change 49 53
Solves Problems and Analyses Issues 50 52
Communications Powerfully and Prolifically 50 52
Connects the Group to the Outside World 50 51
Innovates 50 51
Technical or Professional Expertise 50 51
Develops Strategic Perspective 51 49
Source: Zenger Folkman Inc., 2011
107

2.2.2. The Structural Barriers
Why women are so poorly represented in places of power and leadership?
The consulting firm “The Boston Consulting Group” published a report in
2012 identifying several factors that they consider barriers to the rising the
numbers of women in decision-making forums (see Exhibit 2). The most
cited obstacles of corporate culture and lack of diversity management that
are driving the under-representation of women are:
• Inadequate management of leadership pipelines
• Lack of gender diversity awareness among management
• Culture of office presence
• Lack of on- and off- ramping
• Family and work incompatibility
• “Male-orientated” selection criteria
The recent study in 2012 by Egon Sehnder International on gender diver-sity
solutions focused on the need to identify other women candidates who
remain “under the radar.” There are several levers for change: the age of
identification of high potential remains open, accepting a less linear and
108

phase-based career evolution, and the evolution of the types of skills that
are sought by Boards – women being often in support functions (Human
Resources, communication, law).
2.2.3. The “internal” barriers
The results from the interview analysis4 remind us that it important to ac-knowledge
that there are internal barriers to women climbing the corporate
ladder, and these are within a woman’s control! In a brainstorming session
for this study, the Alumni of the “Women, Be European Board Ready”
Executive programme5 conceded that in addition to highlighting the skills
that women can “bring to the table,” “we must also recognize certain female
‘weaknesses’: absence of self-confidence, the ‘imposter complex’, the ab-sence
of a ‘career plan’... and, above all, the difficulty that we experience
when needing to delegate.” These “weaknesses” are internally driven barriers
that need to be discussed so that they can be rectified. The U.S. study in
2011 on the same topic, by Dr Anne Perschel and Jane Perdue, concurred
that the typical internally driven barriers that face women include lack of
self-confidence, and hesitancy to speak up or act assertively.
“Self confidence is lacking in the female workforce and we are working
on it” (Chevalier and Khadir, 2012). Research shows that women have a
tendency to question their skill set and underestimate their ability to take on
new leadership roles: “Another obstacle is that women often say no to new
challenges” (Chevalier and Khadir, 2012) or as Warren Buffett puts it, “too
many women continue to impose limitations on themselves, talking them-selves
out of achieving their potential” (2013). This observation was recently
confirmed in McKinsey & Company’s latest Women Matter Report (2013),
where the number of women expressing confidence that they will succeed
was about 15 percentage points lower than the number for men, at both
middle and senior management levels (Exhibit 3). This not to say that
women are any less ambitious than men, in fact, the inverse was shown in
this recent study. This lack of confidence appears not to be due a feeling of
personal inadequacy, but rather a lack of confidence in their companies’
corporate culture in supporting their career progression, highlighting the
nexus between “structural barriers” being masked as “internal barriers.”
109

110
EXHIBIT 3
Source: McKinsey & Company & Company, Women Matter, 2013
What about the internal inner-critic that causes women to shun the thought
of saying something that may not gain support from the majority group
(men)? As Sheryl Sandberg preaches, women must learn to “lean in” so that
minority voices shed new light on business decision-making possibilities. As
a Director of a Directorates-Generalat the European Commission inter-viewed
for this study summarized: “I regard courage as one of my most
important personality traits. If you are really courageous… eventually one
will succeed.”
2.3. The potential initiatives and measures
2.3.1. The leverage effect of quotas
Slow progress on the representation of women on corporate boards has led
to the adoption of legal mandates to act as an accelerator. Accordingly, the
Catalyst report (2013) shows that twelve countries have, in recent years,
implemented quotas, including Norway (2003), Finland (2005), Quebec in
Canada (2006), Israel (2007), Spain (2007), Iceland (2010), Kenya (2010),
France (2011), Belgium (2011), Italy (2012), Netherlands (2013), Germany
(2016), and another 16 countries have adopted softer “comply or explain”
legislation.
Analysis of quota policies that have already been implemented show
the effectiveness of this legally constructed tool in achieving an increased
representation of women in the Boardroom.

2.3.1.1. Industrialized Europe and Nordic Countries leading the global
change due to the implementation of Quotas
The latest international data from GMI Ratings (2013) demonstrates the
highest percentage point changes in the past 5 years, notably in companies
with at least 3 women represented, have been attributed to countries in
Industrialized Europe and the Nordic Countries (Table 2A).
TABLE 2A: Regional Breakdown of percentage point changes
since December 2009 and March 2013
Source: GMI Ratings, 2013
Similarly, on a regional scale, GMI Ratings’ latest data (2013), as shown in
Table 2B, reveals that Industrialized Europe and the Nordic countries have
lead the way when it comes to current levels of companies with at least 1
woman represented on a Board. Impressively, almost half of Boards in the
Nordic countries now have at least 3 women holding mandates, which is due
to the implementation of a 40% quota target in 2004.
TABLE 2B: Current levels of women on boards by Region as at March 2013
111
Source: GMI Ratings, 2013

2.3.1.2. The Norwegian example
In 2004, Norway introduced a legal quota of 40% of women on Boards of
Directors. Within only 4 years of the application of the law, the percentage
of Women on a Board of Directors was successfully attainted, going from
18.0% to 40.3% (refer to Graph 3).
GRAPH 3: Percentage of Women on the Board of Directors (Norway)
Source: Natividad, 2010
2.3.1.3. The relevance of the French example
In 2011, the French parliament followed Norway’s lead with the introduc-tion
of the Copé-Zimmermann law, which sets a quota with a target of 20%
of women on Boards of Directors by 2014, and 40% by the end of 2017.
The evolution of the percentages of women on Boards of Directors in
France over the past 7 years is shown in Graph 4. According to the data
recently analyzed by GMI Ratings (2013), France now ranks fourth in the
world for percentage of female directors, and more than half of French
boards have at least three women.
GRAPH 4: Evolution of women on Boards of Directors (France)
112
Source: Ethics & Boards, 2014
Application
of the law
3x more
women on
CAC 40
Boards in
the past 7
years!

However, the comparison with the situation on Management and Executive
Committees in France demonstrates the fact that, outside these quotas that
apply only to the mandates for Boards of Directors, there is very limited
progress when it comes to the appointment of women to Executive Com-mittees:
GRAPH 5: Evolution of the percentage of women
on Executive Committees (France)
Only a 1.9%
increase in
Top
Management
in the past 6
years!
Source: Capitalcom, 2012 and 2013
In France, the law sets quotas for companies that “employ an average of at
least 500 permanent employees and have a turnover or total assets of at
least 50 million euros,” which applies to some 2,000 companies.
113
The law provides that:
• If, at the date of publication of the law, one of the two sexes is not represented on
the Board of Directors, the appointment of the next Director must be of this sex.
• On 1 January 2014, the proportion of members of the Board of Directors of each
sex cannot be less than 20%
• On 1 January 2017, the proportion of members of the Board of Directors of each
sex cannot be less than 40%
As well as two sanctions:
• The invalidity of any appointment in violation of the law (but not the nullity of the
proceedings to which the administrator has already participated).
• The suspension of remuneration of the Directors until the board meets the quota.
2.3.1.4. The European Commission’s commitment
to gender equality on Boards
The European Commission’s commitment to putting the increase of gender
equality on Boards high on the political agenda, has made it a driving force
in the discussion over how to best tackle the problem of gender imbalance in
the Boardroom. As demonstrated by Graph 6, in 2011, the European Com-mission
called for self-regulation, and in early 2012 revealed that at the
current rate of progress, it would take around 40 years before companies
would naturally reach gender balanced Boards (Europa, April 2014). As
such, the discussion into mandatory measures in the form of quotas was
explored in a public consultation, resulting in a Directive in late 2012 (40%

objective of non-executive directors of listed companies by 2020), which
the European Parliament backed in late 2013 (Europa, November 2013).
The Commission’s proposal then passed to the Council of Ministers. In
June 2014, the Council issued a Progress Report stating that there is not yet
consensus on passing this Directive, indicating that “a number of delegations
continue to prefer national measures (or non-binding measures at the EU
level) whereas others support EU-wide legislation,” averting that “further
work and political reflection will be required before a compromise can be
reached” by the Council of Ministers (Europa, June 2014).
GRAPH 6: Progress in the European Union following initiatives
by the European Commission
As of late 2013, women in the European Union hold an average 17.8% of
boardroom mandates, up from 11.9% in late 2010, meaning that the share
of women on boards has risen an average of 2.2 percentage points per year
– four times the rate of change between 2003 and 2010 (Europa, April 2014).
While progress is generally higher in countries that already introduced
mandatory quotas, it has also been observed that the threat of mandatory
legislation on a European scale has brought this issue to the attention of
national policy-makers, such as the United Kingdom.
2.3.1.5. The recent efforts of the United Kingdom
encouraging the market to regulate the problem
The UK has long been opposed to the enforcement of mandatory quotas in
order to achieve an improvement to the representation of women on Boards.
As such, amid fears of EU-level regulation, the UK has recently made an
effort to demonstrate that no such legal intervention is needed. As such, cor-porate
governance code provisions were adopted in 2010, and subsequently
expanded in 2012, requiring listed companies to disclose their progress
against current and future objectives and policies on Boardroom diversity.
114
Source: Europa, 2014

Furthermore, in response to an effective plateau in the new appointments of
women directors between 2008 and 2010, the UK Government, in 2011,
published an independent enquiry into women on Boards, the “Lord Davies
Report.” The report revealed “in 2010 women made up only 12.5% of the
members of the corporate boards of FTSE 100 companies. This was up
from 9.4% in 2004. But the rate of increase is too slow,” concluding that
“at the current rate of change, it will take over 70 years to achieve gender-balanced
115
boardrooms in the UK.”
The 2011 report proposed 10 recommendations for government and busi-ness
in achieving urgent change in the proportion of women representing
corporate boards, with the key notable recommendation being that the
FTSE 100 Boards should aim for a minimum 25% female representation on
their boards by 2015. The following year, the “Cranfield School of Manage-ment’s
Female FTSE report 2012” disclosed the progress made since pre-vious
year’s recommendations: “Overall the percentage of board directors
who are female is 15%, an uplift of 2.5% on what was a three year plateau”
(Sealy & Vinnicombe, 2012). Lord Davies (2012) published the first annual
progress report in parallel with the Cranfield Report, where he celebrated
the start of “a culture change taking place right at the very heart of British
business in relation to how women are seen within the workforce. […]
However, I must also emphasize that efforts need to be ramped up and the
speed of change accelerated if we’re to avoid Government interference. […]
We were always clear that 25% is the minimum starting point, not the
ultimate goal.”
Lord Davies’ progress report in 2013 expressed concern that after a
short period of growth in 2011 and 2012, the last six months actually saw a
decrease from 17.7% to 17.3% (Graph 7), signaling that the momentum
appears to be slowing, as well as the fact there has been much less progress
in executive appointments at the top.
GRAPH 7: Percentage of Women on the Board of Directors (UK)
Source: Women on Boards (Progress Report), April 2013

Business Secretary Vince Cable summarized the consequences of such
complacency settling in: “Government continues to believe that a voluntary
led approach is the best way forward. But today’s report also serves as a
timely reminder to business that quotas are still a real possibility if we do not
meet the 25% target of women on boards of FTSE 100 companies by 2015.”
The 2013 parallel publication of the “Cranfield School of Management’s
Female FTSE report 2013” reiterated this warning: “At Cranfield we have
stood steadfast against quotas on the basis that Chairmen must understand
the benefits of gender diversity and commit to achieving it. Undoubtedly a
number of Chairmen do get it and see a gender balanced board as the ‘new
normal.’ Unfortunately too many Chairmen choose to ignore the issue in
the false hope that it will go away. Viviane Reding’s demanding legislation
is on its way and it goes far beyond Lord Davies’ recommendations. It is
becoming a matter of urgency for those companies that do not have a
gender balanced board to let go of their board stereotypes and appoint more
creatively” (Sealy & Vinnicombe, 2012).
It was good news in Lord Davies’ 2014 Annual Report, showing that in
2014 the UK recovered from previous underperformance and are getting
closer to achieving the 25% target set for 2015, with women now making
up 20.7% of FTSE 100 Boards (Graph 8). If the momentum experienced
between March 2013 and March 2014 continues at the same rate, the 25%
target will be met or exceeded. However, if there is any slowing of the
current rate of progress, the 2015 target will be missed. The Davies’ Report
concedes that, while they are “confident that with sustained and continued
action we will meet our targets, […] we also are aware that failure to
achieve our voluntary targets would again raise the prospect of compulsory
measures being enacted by Government or from the European Union.”
GRAPH 8: Predicted trajectories of Women on FTSE 100 Boards (UK)
Source: The Female FTSE Board Report 2014, April
116

The world’s eyes are indeed on the UK to see whether or not a voluntary
approach, rather than regulation, is enough of an incentive for companies to
realize that women make a positive difference to board effectiveness.
2.3.1.6. Germany concedes to legislative intervention in the form of quotas
Germany, who has long been a proponent of quotas, had relied on Cor-porate
Governance codes established in 2001, encouraging companies to set
voluntary targets. However, the percentage of women on corporate boards
increased by no more than 3% in Germany from October 2010 to January
2012 (Paul Hastings, 2013). As such, Chancellor Merkel acknowledged
that these voluntary targets were not working adequately, and the need for
a stronger legislative intervention, in the form of a 30% mandatory quota
would be implemented in 2016.
3.1.1. Arguments against the implementation of Quotas
“The risk of replacing a competent person with someone who is less
competent” is an argument that is often heard! However, if using the same
methods and criteria as used for the recruitment of male Board members,
this argument of a risk of lowering the competence level, and in turn a
decrease in the value of the Board, seems specious and unfounded. Quotas
are also seen as likely to cause problems for those that they benefit: these
people become stigmatized, considered as only being in their position due
to the fact that they have certain characteristic that gave them a privilege, in
this instance: the female gender. Finally, quotas are sometimes presented as
unattainable in view of the small number of people with the required charac-teristics
and skills (Stone, Cornet & Cusumano, 2012). Although the debate
remains contentious in Europe, since the European Commission’s proposal,
more and more people, including Directors, are eventually considering
quotas as being a “necessary evil.” In response to the question whether
quotas are of utmost importance in the gender equality on Boards debate,
70% of the women who responded in our study stated, “Yes” (Table 3).
TABLE 3
Source: Study “Women and Power”, Viviane de Beaufort, October 2012
117

3.1.2. Other measures to promote Gender Diversity
There have been various measures to promote Gender Diversity proposed,
the success of which were referenced by a BCG Study (2011), as shown in
Graph 9:
GRAPH 9: Percentage of companies that have put in place
measure to promote Gender Diversity
Source: BCG Perspectives, Hard-Wiring Diversity into Your Business, 2011
Of these potential measures, it appears that the member states of the Euro-pean
Union have adopted a range of different measures (Table 4).
TABLE 4: The Adoption of Gender Diversity measures, by European country
Source: BCG Perspectives, Hard-Wiring Diversity into Your Business, 2011
3.1.3. Transparency as a tool for development
Listed companies are now required to include a statement on Corporate
Governance in their annual report. Adding a section on “Diversity” would
contribute to the transparency of the subject and would create a means of
comparison (a benchmark). As shown by the company case studies analyzed
by the Austrian Institute for SME Research, the information that should, at
a minimum, be included consists of:
118

• Detailed and diverse statistics
• The progress of short-and medium-term objectives
• Tools to be implemented, such scorecards
3.1.4. Supporting Women
Women may face problems of legitimacy in the dominant male model.
Mentoring and targeted training with coaching on traits, as proposed by the
first program in France dedicated to women on this topic (inspired by the
Canadian model), “Women, Be European Board Ready” will assist women
in acquiring the “skills & traits” necessary.
4. Leadership Styles: A Women’s Search for a Power “to Act,”
rather than a Power “for Its Own Sake”
Research in management identifies the tendency of male norms leading to a
quest for power for power’s sake – the power “to be,” as opposed to the
feminine power model “to do” or “to act,” where power is exercised in the
public interest, generally in a more collective way, with a strong sense of
personal responsibility vis-à-vis others. The recent empirical evidence
analyzed in McKinsey & Company’s Women Matter 2013 report reaffirms
the fact that the prevailing leadership styles do not help women find their
way to the top, citing a top executive respondent as acknowledging that
“Women have a different style than men when it comes to management,
networking, and so forth. Men tend to promote men whose style they under-stand.”
In Et si les Femmes réinventaient le travail (And if women reinvent the
working world), Cristina Lunghi (2001) affirms that one must not believe
that women do not appreciate power, but that they see it as a means to get
things done, rather than for its external show, or just to possess it. The in-terviewees
of the study tended to concur with this belief:
• “It seems to me that women who have power are anxious to do something with
it ... When we accept a role, it is first to do something more than to be something,”
Arlette Chabot (interviewed in Sarfati & Gattegno, 2007).
• “I never sought out power in order to be powerful. I believe in a different form of
power: to do something for yourself and for others,” Laurence Parisot (interviewed
in Sarfati & Gattegno, 2007).
• “[Women are] less tactless, more preoccupied by the power to achieve results,” S.
Paix.
• “POWER: this notion is very different for men and women. The attributes of
power for men are status, the signing power, and formal prerogatives. Women give
precedence to freedom of action, decision power, and the ability to get things done,” S.
Ouziel.
119

4.1. A career motivated by the desire to do good
In the interviews, the great majority of women interviewed actually state
that they do not build their career in connection with an aspiration to power.
Rather than an elaborate strategy, women do not deliberately plan their rise
to the ranks of powerful positions (Table 5).
TABLE 5
Source: Study “Women and Power”, Viviane de Beaufort, October 2012.
Rather, the women interviewed found themselves in a position of power
based on chance, opportunities, and choices that are always in connection
with the interest of the mission and the job:
• “No career plans, because it is an impediment to freedom,” D. Ernotte-Cunci.
• “I have let things come all along my path. I let my instinct and my desires guide
me, I have always endeavored to have fun in my successive positions,” S. Paix.
• “The enterprise… should, in a country such as ours, regain its [letters of] nobility.
I wanted to participate in the work of (re)construction,” S. Lochmann.
• “I plan to influence the role of the company in its social and economic environ-ment,”
120
N. Balla.
• “Is there something close to my heart? Evolving business models, contributing to
thinking differently,” D. Elyaacoubi.
• “[I want] to shake things up, to advance a dynamic and innovative conceptions of
the general interest,” A. Bricard.
In other words, it appears that women will seek positions of power and/or
mandates on Boards with a strong desire to “make things happen.” As
Rafik Smati surmised, this female “desire” to change things for the better is
in stark contrast with masculine interpretation of power as a conquest: “The
conquest is fundamentally a masculine drive. Men have developed a system
of values consistent with their own behavior, a model that is based upon the
conquest: before exercising power, we must be able to conquer it. Our
system still glorifies the desire for conquest, which has forced women to
fight men on the register of the conquest, which is against nature” (Bramly,
Carminati-Rabasse et al., 2012).

4.2. The search of a power exercised collectively
The warlike conquest and solitary exercise of vertical power does not appear
to be a suitable model for women, who desire a more collective decision-making
121
forum:
• “Power isolates, which is what I hate about it … I only function well when sur-rounded
by others,” S. Paix.
• “When we are at the top, we are alone,” D. Reiniche (Gilbert, 2012).
• “It is important to take into account all dimensions of power, including the more
dramatic aspects: understand that all your actions and words are signals. Power makes
you lose some of your freedom and demands high standards,” Francine Weber
(interviewed in Rocoplan & Vanbremeersch, 2011).
• “Of course power isolates, but less for women than for men as they are less
carried away by power games,” I. de Kerviler.
• “Power isolates, because the perceptions of others change. Learning to surround
yourself with others is critical. I think women do this more spontaneously, and are
therefore less likely to feel isolated,” V. Rocoplan.
• “Nothing is more foreign to me that the “phenomenon of court.” Instead, I take
note of a lot of opinions from various sources, I try to “harness” my goal of always
uniting opinions,” A. Bricard.
These feelings of isolation of power suggest that women are more prone to
stewardship-driven management styles, which emphasizes a collaborative
approach, rather than an agency-driven approach.
4.3. The fear, hatred of, or simply a disinterest in power games
The majority of interviewees in this study mentioned some discomfort in
the face of conflict, feeling that it is unnecessary and that there are better
ways of going about resolving problems. In this way, women naturally seek
mediation rather than confrontation, but they do not hesitate to assert their
position (or opposition) if they feel that there is a breach of their values.
They are therefore particularly courageous and committed to their causes,
once again suggesting that they are more comfortable with stewardship-driven
management styles, commenting that:
• “When it comes to a power struggle, I try to understand the positions of others, I
state mine, I try to take on the concerns of the opposing positions in the interest of
the company ... I do enter into opposition,” N. Balla.
• “I feel that it is my right and duty to always give my opinion,” Anonymous.
• “I have already objected to a decision and I’ve noted that courage is more pre-valent
in women on this point: to have the ability to challenge and confront the
point of view of the majority of the company,” B. Dalibard.
• “Women are not afraid, they say things clearly. If a woman does not want to enter
into open conflict, her resistance may be leaving the Board,” Anonymous.

• “I do not try to avoid battles... I have been known to strongly express disagreement
when decisions went against my values. In such cases... I try... to use argument, to
convince, and to find allies,” A. Bricard.
• “Women are ready to defend their position if a disagreement arises,” S. Ouziel.
• “Power only isolates according to the way you exercise it. If you are too far
removed from employees, then it isolates and you’re out of the game. However, the
exercise of power can be a great source of collective energy,” N. Mesny.
4.4. A systematic reliance on skills (for reassurance) and
the duty towards a special responsibility for women
4.4.1. The importance of expertise
All of the interviewees cited skills as a priority for success; the eternal
female “imposers” justify their position and their career progression by hard
work and competence:
• “A woman’s professional background and expertise is very important in gaining a
legitimacy that does not only depend on quotas. Women are very much judged on
achievements and ‘accomplishments,’ where as men have the privilege to sometime
be judged on their potential. Women do not have the right to make mistakes, so we
need to arrive well prepared for Boards,” B. Dalibard.
• “I’ve always be selected based on my competences,” Anonymous..
• “Skills and degrees help a woman in her quest for success,” D. Elyaacoubi.
• “Women are often more advanced in the knowledge of their accounts ... they need
to be completely factual if they are to convince others,” D. Ernotte-Cunci.
• “It is important that they have the professional experience and that they are
legitimate,” A.-S. Fauvet.
• “Academic ‘training’ is not enough: women must be legitimate in their function and
sector across different regions. The professional background is therefore important,
though women are often disadvantages compared to men in terms of the quantity
and depth of professional experience expected,” C. Lewiner.
• “A woman must have a strong professional legitimacy (a professional career), to
enter a Board. Otherwise, she will be discredited!,” P. Sourisse.
• “The hardest part for me was being a quota. When one is a female quota, it means
that we are illegitimate, and so must prove ourselves twice as much as others that
you are a legitimate Board member,” S. Auconie.
4.4.2. The sisterhood?
Notwithstanding the famous Queen Bee complex, which probably still per-sists
in some sectors where women are scarce:
• “A woman that is already on a Board can have an ambiguous position with respect
to the arrival of other women: on the one hand it can be said she will be ‘less
alone,’ even if at the same time it reduces her difference and originality,” M.
Dubouloy. “It would seem that...among the women having acceded to positions of
122

power, almost all women now feel a collective responsibility: when they can, they
act on behalf of women,” Anne Cécile Sarfati and Hervé Gattegno (2007).
• “The female pioneers, according to their own admissions, have for a long time
worked alone. Being the first allowed them to get all the attention and limelight.
According to witness accounts, many have fully savored this period of grace until
they got bored with meetings attended mainly by male homologues. They have then
turned their attention to the younger generation, to help them progress in their
careers”, E. Gagliardi.
• “We need all the women who have power or influence ... to assume this special
responsibility: women who run very large corporations, what are they doing towards
ensuring that there is parity on their Boards?,” Elizabeth Guigou (interviewed in
Sarfati & Gattegno, 2007).
• “I see myself more as an influential woman, a woman providing openings, than as
a woman in power. In any case, as someone who tries to move the demarcation
lines, to jostle rigidities, to overcome preconceived ideas,” Véronique Morali (inter-viewed
123
in Sarfati & Gattegno, 2007).
• “Is there any solidarity among women? I try to build it but it is not systematic and
I do not want to give a sense of ostracism based on gender!,” S. Lochmann.
• “Is there solitude? Yes, absolutely. I am the 2nd woman on the Executive Com-mittee
with Christine Albanel and we have developed the habit of sitting side by
side. When I am at the office, on the ground, a natural solidarity occurs with the
female Heads,” D. Ernotte-Cunci.
• “In all of my actions I favor the respect of parity between women and men,” A.
Bricard.
5. What Potential Changes to Corporate Governance Are Essential?
5.1. Sustainable Governance for Boards
5.1.1. Exercise of power or sense of responsibility
It is striking that all the women interviewed for this study shared an acute
sense of responsibility. It is a trait that is characteristically and recurrently
mentioned by the interviewees, regardless of their geographical origin: “an
understanding of the business, alertness and vigilance, in order to try to
identify potential risks and make strategic choices to verify that the future
of the group is more or less assured, to ensure the coherence of everything”
(Gilbert, 2012).
Power “to do” creates a special responsibility: a pattern that emerged in
the interviews conducted for this study as a commitment to leading change
for the public interest:
• “Women testify to having jeopardized their own career to do what they felt was
their duty, preferring the correctness of the action over manipulation, which has

ensured them a future! In this way, powerful women feel totally responsible for
their actions, for better or for worse,” E. Gagliardi.
• “Courage and power are linked. To exercise power, it takes a lot of managerial
courage. Decisions are sometimes difficult to make,” N. Balla.
• “I listen to the arguments of my team, and I take particular notice of external
advice that I seek, but when it comes to making a decision, I take responsibility
without hesitation, fear, or remorse,” A. Bricard.
• “I very much like the status of English Director. Before joining a Board, accord-ing
the English law, one must sign a paper that says you engage your personal
responsibility in your role as Non-Executive Director,” Anonymous.
• “Courage is the key function of a manager. What matters first and foremost is
courage; it’s a value that earns one respect. It is courage that makes you want to
follow someone or not,” S. Paix.
• “Women are more aware of their responsibility even if courage is not always
rewarded,” I. de Kerviller.
• “My role and mission are driven by a strong conviction that nothing is more
exciting (but also more difficult) than to flush sterile habits and replace them with
new behaviors that create value and/or greater goodness,” A. Bricard.
5.1.2. Respect for rules and ethics
It is evident that women have a meaningful commitment to standards. In all
the interviews for this study, rules are valued, the respect for rules above all
(refer to Table 6). The rules and the ethical framework are clearly iden-tified
as a means of protection against the arbitrary abuse of power of all
kinds. The principles of good governance (public or private) are a bulwark
against ethical deviance. Even the quota laws, sometimes difficult to accept
because women wanted “to get there without them,” have been clearly
identified as a creator of legitimacy.
Women are often attached to processes, mainly due to the protection
against arbitrariness and personal appropriation of power, yet it is mainly
the expectation of ethics and morality that is embraced by the women inter-viewed.
Generally speaking, the women interviewed for this study regarded
compliance, regardless of the nature of the rules, as a guarantee of good
governance (see specific analysis on “Role and functioning of Boards”):
• “Rules provide structure, facilitate relationships, and set limits. Women have the
impression that rules are constantly broken by an informal logic of ‘power over’
and not ‘power for’. They have long suffered from this feeling, and that probably
explains, in part, why they are more interested in putting more rules in place. The
rules allow for formalism and transparency,” M. Dubouloy.
• “Ethics and the law are two constraints on the exercise of power that I am
subjected to. Another dimension that stands out for me lies in the general interest
and the balance of powers at the heart of the Board... The rules at the heart of the
company are essential and necessary for proper functioning, for transparency, for
longevity,” S. Lochmann.
124

• “Rules are necessary guidelines in all aspects of community life. We need them in
order to determine the fields of individual autonomy. So this is an area of freedom
that allows the use of individual intelligence. It is important to define rules, and to
communicate them. They must evolve over time: they are not set in stone,” N. Mesny.
• “Rules are essential. I am particularly attached to implicit rules such as honesty
and loyalty,” A. Arcier.
• “The role of rules in a company is essential. Without precise rules, an organization
does not have the visibility and security that individuals require in order to adhere
to (and progress towards) common goals. I am very attached to those rules related
to equality, justice and generosity in the sharing of results,” A. Bricard.
• “The main challenge of a manager (and team) is to measure their decisions in
terms of ethical criteria,” S. Paix.
125
TABLE 6
5.1.3. A responsibility to change the way Boards function
The majority of women who spoke in this study emphasized the need to
change certain practices in the way that Boards function, including:
• Change aspects of governance: the current approach is too financial, not opera-tional
enough.
• A systematic lack on the Board’s Agenda: Human Resources policies and aspects
(including succession planning); technical and technological skills.
• Ensure the sustainability of the business and not just the income of Directors!
• The issue of remuneration is important. It must be gauged against strict and
arduous quantifiable performance criteria. It must be justified, as this is important
for social cohesion.
The advice must be assessed more frequently, with longer and more in-depths
reviews, in order to improve the functioning of the Boards. The
magnitude of the current crisis relates back to core values: quality of man-agement,
composition and functioning of Boards, and “increased role of the
pilot operating the aircraft.”
The underlying message of the women interviewed was a stark acknowl-edgement
that the power afforded by leadership position commands a special
responsibility, notably with respect to leading change (refer to Table 7).

• “I just joined the Board of ‘Lagardère,’ my project behind this commitment is to
be useful, to make a contribution to the task of bringing change. Women have the
appetite for societal issues (CSR, sustainable development, NGOs, civil society,
gender equality...),” H. Molinari.
TABLE 7
5.2. An idealized vision of a Directorship
The independence of a Board member, a key requirement prescribed by all
Governance Codes,6 clashes with the manager’s desire for power. Yet,
within Boards, it has been confirmed that Female members are diligent and
competent in preparing meetings and asking questions, and will often oppose
behavior that they consider non-ethical (Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi
and Malone, 2010). In summary, women have the courage to seek to influ-ence,
in order to improve the functioning and decision-making of the board.
The interviewees of this study, when asked what Non-Executive Directors
are “supposed” to do, stated that they should be able to “integrate the long-term
vision,” and “participate in the construction of a decent and ethical
company, in the eyes of the public.” As such, these so-called “fresh eyes”
are motivated by their idealized conception of Boards. However, these
women may have problems positioning themselves, since their behavior
disturbs the status quo. These women will have to choose whether to resist,
or conform to the current “power model.” Evidence has suggested that there
is a high risk of women conforming to the current model, which would
mean that this idealized vision of a Directorship does not transpire. It is,
therefore, crucial that women be encouraged to resist the current model,
paving the way for a better, improved version of a Directorship.
126

5.3. A Need for Diversity
5.3.1. Diversity and “added value”
Diversity on boards has been widely proven in the literature to make good
economic and business sense. Catalyst (2004, 2007) has shown that Fortune
500 companies with a higher proportion of women in the Boardroom are
generally more profitable. McKinsey & Company have consistently shown
in their Women Matter Reports (2007–2013) that companies with higher
ratios of women on Boards typically exhibited higher operating margins,
higher return on equity, higher stock-price growth, and higher valuations.
A recent French study using data from the 2008 Global Financial crisis
demonstrated that, during the crisis, companies with at least 35% women
on the management team performed significantly better (Ferrary, 2013).
The interviewees of the study only confirm what has been shown in the
literature: a mixed-gender board improves Corporate Performance:
• “It is best when Directors are very different. It is the range of combined skills and
diversity of profiles that create the wealth of a Board of Directors,” I. Seillier.
• “The challenge is to transform the Boards, so that they are: more diverse, more
feminine, more international, younger, and that the profiles of the members com-pliment
127
each other,” H. Molinari.
• “Companies must be able to further diversify and internationalize their Board of
Directors by consequently integrating women,” S. Lochmann.
• “We must ensure that a Board of Directors is composed of different personalities
in order to create a coherent whole that functions at its best. It is the result of the
juxtaposition of temperaments and personalities that create a good Board,” Anonymous.
5.3.2. “Feminine” qualities brought to the “Director’s table”
may change the game.
Women who have recently been nominated for Directorships often bring
fresh eyes, with an impartial perception of past decisions and actions. As
demonstrated in Table 8, an overwhelming majority of the women inter-viewed
for this study freely evoked feminine characteristics that they con-sider
to be qualities: listening and empathy, emotional intelligence, intel-lectual
honesty (ability to recognize mistakes of judgment).

TABLE 8
These are some of the attributes that women bring that make a difference to
board effectiveness, as listed by the interviewees of the duty:
N. Ball: Greater ability to listen, capability to more completely analyze subjects,
and a middle of the road perspective.
B. Dalibard: A perception of the concrete, motivated by a common interest, daring
enough to ask questions (of HR specifically), good at keeping their ego out of the way.
D. Elyaacoubi: More intuitive.
D. Ernotte-Cunci: More collective, using less unverifiable assertions, more cour-ageous,
128
more able to think freely.
S. Ouziel: Less of a political reflex. Women do things for the company and not for
appearances. Women have a real concern about making things move forward, they
are less into politics and their personal positioning. They bring more objectivity and
sense of the practical. Women are idealists and impassioned...Women are less dog-matic.
A. Arcier: Capable of cooperation and compromise, better ability to anticipate by
listening and intuition, better sense of the concrete.
A. Bricard: Women have by necessity a better ability to listen since our social
culture has taught them to “listen” to the man (the father, the husband, the son).
They have a greater capability to challenge their perceptions as they have a less-developed
ego. And finally, since they place the general interest above their own,
they are less career-oriented, less calculating, they don’t hesitate to tell the truth
even if it may be upsetting.
M.-C. Oghly7: It is necessary to bring some diversity to Boards. Independent Direc-tors
bring meaning, a broader vision, more objectivity, and complementary expertise.
Women are very sensitive to many ethical considerations and their sense of team-work
facilitates the operation of a Board as a ‘team.’ Diversity is the guarantor of
new ideas. Female Company managers, though the responsibilities exercised within
their own business, can bring added value: they know about the functioning of
Boards, have knowledge of the market, knowledge of international considerations,
and/or technical knowledge. They are also used to developing and discussing
strategies, they do not hesitate to contribute their vision.
The challenge is, therefore, to resist the peer pressure of the dominant model
in order to preserve and further develop the unique attributes.

6. The “Added Value” of a Mixed Leadership Model
The normalization of women in positions of power, the current evolution in
our society with the incursion of diversity, as well as the development of new
models, are changing the game. The personal motivation of women and the
feminine “way of thinking” seem to be, rather than a handicap, better adapted
to the more flexible management model required by current evolutions: the
engine of power gives way to responsibility, and leading by example takes
the baton from speech. A more emotional way of thinking is more in step
with a humanist leadership approach, which integrates rationality and in-tuition,
and measured taking of risks. The ideal manager of either gender
must henceforth be able to blend the male skills (charisma, leadership,
impartiality, decision making capability...) with the female (rationality, em-pathy,
listening, organization, knowledge...):
• “Men and women are different – equally intelligent but we behave differently and
are motivated by different things. […] Balanced teams perform better, and gives
companies specific actionable ideas to improve their management of all talent –
regardless of gender,” Helena Morrissey (interviewed by Rankin, 2013).
• “In more advanced companies, the moment is approaching where men and women
working together will open new trajectories and a different creation of values,” Marie
Boy (interviewed in Gilbert, 2012).
• “Instead of forcing women to adopt male behavior in order to accede to power,
why not encourage men to develop more feminine types of behavior? This time is
no longer for dueling, but rather for duality,” Rafik Smati (Bramly, Carminati-
Rabasse et al., 2012).
• “To achieve good things you need people with different opinions, having different
experiences, and minds but sharing the same goal – without diversity, you only
reach incremental goods,” BengtJarrehult.8
6.1. The shift towards collectiveness; a shift which is embraced by women
Ways of decision-making are becoming more transverse and collective, and
women seem particularly comfortable with these changes:
• “A woman sometimes has a greater capacity to surround herself with a team that
will be able to talk to her, to tell her what is really going on; decisions made by
women are sometimes more collegiate. [….] Men sometimes have the feeling that
only authoritarian models can work in management. My philosophy is that I'm not
here to yell at people,” D. Ernotte-Cunci.
• Power isolates only “if it is wielded with authority. It is important to exercise power
with an approach of ‘soft influence:’ constantly confront the ideas of others, put
yourself at the same level as the others. It should be free speech. Everyone is an
actor of the project. Thus the power is stronger, visible, effective ... There are still
too many conservative attitudes... There is an obvious complementarity between men
and women, allowing them to produce more profound changes, gently,” H. Molinari.
129

• “A certain conformism prevails within Boards. Being the voice of innovation
is more or less well perceived. We must empower Boards and succeed in creat-ing
a real dynamic within Boards. In general, the corporate world encourages
conformism rather than courage. The search for greater diversity must come down
to a concern for greater business and economic efficiency, and not a simple
conformism,” S. Ouziel.
6.2. A mixed leadership style (one that incorporates and embraces “female”
qualities) as a solution to limiting the employee disengagement trend
The latest research by Aon Hewitt, the global leader in Human Resource
solutions, shows that in 2011, only 52% of employees in Europe, and 58%
globally, are engaged9 by their work (Graph 10). According to Aon Hewitt
(2012), “striving to maintain a higher level of employee engagement is a key
factor for longer-term business performance and better positioning when
market conditions become favorable.” Against the current economic back-drop
and the fact that recruiting costs run at approximately 1.5 times annual
salary (MSW Research and Dale Carnegie Training, 2012), it is apparent
that it has become more important than ever for employers to develop and
maintain highly engaged employees.
GRAPH 10: Global Engagement Trends
Source: “Trends in Global Employee Engagement,” AON Hewitt, 2012.
Forbes looked at “what qualities are more useful in fostering engaged, pro-ductive
employees… in building positive manager-employee relationships?”
The author, Victor Lipman (2013), concedes that “almost without exception
the most effective managers and executives I knew (in addition of course to
possessing technical proficiency) shared five – for lack of a better term –
softer characteristics” including: • Being a good listener;
• Showing perception to the more subtle issues and motivations of other employees;
• Good and open communicators who are approachable and available;
• Having a calm demeanor.
• Having a general concern for the well being of the colleagues, and who can be
trusted to keep their word.
130

Women tend to act more like a coach than an individual player, being more
concerned with the glory of the team over personal goal scoring. Further-more,
women are more inclined have better-developed “soft” skills from
the characteristics list cited, including relational and emotional intelligence,
holistic perspective, inclusion, empathy and intuition, as outlined in this
article. These skills are the skills required in facilitating a superior sen-sitivity
to issues that can create low job satisfaction, and ultimately help to
reverse the trend of high employee disengagement.
7. Conclusion
A considerable push towards increased gender diversity on Boards will have
significant “added value” effects and positive economic implications. As
such, gender diversification on Boards should be treated simply as a matter
of good governance. However, the challenge remains for companies to
appreciate that this diversity must be met with a sense of inclusiveness, so
that an increase in the representation of women on Boards will confront the
existing paradigm, as women endeavor to propose a new model that will
satisfy their understanding of good governance. As the UK Minister for
Women and Equalities, Maria Miller highlights, “The workplace was de-signed
by men for men. Women don’t need special treatment, they just need
a modernized workplace that gives them a level playing field” (Rothery,
2014). This level playing field will naturally lend itself towards the evolu-tion
of a mixed leadership style. And this new model, one that integrates both
masculine and feminine “polarities,” may indeed be the key in reversing
the costly trend of high employee disengagement, one of the most substan-tial
challenges currently faced in the governance of companies, organizations
131
and governments.
NOTES
1. For a discussion of the recent improvements to the UK Corporate Gover-nance
Code with respect to improving Gender Diversity on Boards, refer to section
on “The recent efforts of the United Kingdom encouraging the market to regulate
the problem.”
2. For a discussion of the initiatives of the European Union with respect to im-proving
Gender Diversity on Boards, refer to section on “The European Com-mission’s
commitment to gender equality on Boards.”
3. Sheryl Sandberg is the COO of Facebook, and the author of the book Lean In
(2013). She made this statement during her speech at the Stanford Clayman In-stitute
for Gender Research in April, 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9-
d_FRjwYM

4. As part of the qualitative research an academic study on Gender Diversity in
the Corporate World, 49 executive women from around the globe provided interviews
that were very detailed in content. The sections of the interviews that specifically and
narrowly corresponded to women and their interaction with power were examined
to form the qualitative analysis for the study on “Women and Power:” De Beaufort,
V. “Women and Power: Taboo, or New Corporate Governance Model?,” ESSEC
and Boyden (joint publication), September 2012.
The complete in-extenso version of those interviews has been published along-side
the “Women and Power” study, electronic copies of which can be found at:
https://sites.google.com/a/essec.edu/viviane-de-beaufort/engagement-women/
leadership-au-feminin
However, it was always intended (and clearly stated in the original publication
“Women and Power”) that these interviews would be subsequently analyzed under
the Corporate Governance microscope, in order to highlight the fact that current and
potential female candidates share a rigorous vision of the functioning of Boards and
therefore demand a new model of governance.
As such, the content that was exploited and cited in this article are not the same
as those used to support the conclusions made in the previous article.
This article, as the title “Women on Boards: Sharing a Rigorous Vision of the
Function of Boards, Demanding a New Model of Corporate Governance” suggests,
is an analysis of the relevant comments made by the interviewees with respect to
specific questions of corporate governance and the functioning of Boards.
Interviewed women that are cited in this article include:
• Isla Ramos Chavez, Executive Director of Europe, Middle East & Africa Business
Transformation at Lenovo.
• Stéphanie Paix, President of the Board of la Caisse d’Epargne Rhône-Alpes
(Groupe BPCE). Board Member of Natixis and of Crédit Foncier de France.
• Sylvie Ouziel, CEO of Allianz, Managed Operations & Services SE (AMOS SE).
• Delphine Ernotte-Cunci, Deputy CEO of France Telecom-Orange, Senior Exec-utive
Vice President of Orange France, Board Member of Suez Environnement.
• Sabine Lochmann, General Manager of Strategic and Governmental Affairs at
Johnson & Johnson Medical Company, President of the association ‘Avenir Fem-mes
132
Sante’.
• Natalie Balla, CEO of La Redoute (Groupe Redcats).
• Diaa Elyaacoubi, CEO of Streamcore System France. Board Member of Ingenico
France. Agnès Bricard, Founder and President of the Accounting Firm Bricard,
Lacroix & Associés, President of French Public Accountants’ professional organi-zation,
Vice-President of ‘Club Action de Femmes.’
• Emmanuelle Gagliardi, Associate Director of Connecting Women, Director of the
magazine L/ONTOP.
• Isabelle de Kerviler, Partner at Cailliau Dedouit and Associates, Financial Expert
for The Court of Cassation (The Highest Court in France), Counselor for Paris
(1983–2001), Member of the ‘Economic, Social and Environmental Council’ of
France (CESE), Vice-President of the ‘Economic Activities’ department.

• Valérie Rocoplan, Founder and Director of Talentis (Executive Management
Coaching International).
• Barbara Dalibard, Managing Director of SNCF Voyages. Board Member of
Wolters Kluwer NV, Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin SCA, Globe
Cast Holding SA, et Michelin SA.
• Nathalie Mesny, Managing Director of Oxybul Eveil & Jeux.
• Anne-Sophie Fauvet Mulliez, Board Member of Pimkie. Member of the Decathlon
Foundation, Member of the Managing Committee of AFM.
• Colette Lewiner, Chairwomen of TDF, Energy Advisor to Capgemini. Board
Member of Bouygues, Colas, Eurotunnel, Lafarge, Nexans, and TGS-Nopec Geo-physical
133
Company.
• Pascale Sourisse, Senior Vice-President for the Land and Joint systems division at
Thales Group. Board Member of Telecom ParisTech School, Vinci, Renault and
DCNS.
• Sophie Auconie, Member of the European Parliament for the French constituency
‘Massif-Central-Centre,’ Co-founder and Chair of the Association ‘Femmes au
Centre.’
• Maryse Dubouloy, Associate Professor in the Management Department at ESSEC
Business School, Consultant/Coach at Réseau Pluridis. She helped in guiding the
development of the Interview Question for the study “Women and Power” by
Viviane de Beaufort, and was also interviewed in her capacity as an expert psycho-clinician.
• Agnes Arcier, Director of ADETEF Bercy (The French international technical
assistance agency of the Ministries for the Economy, Budget and Sustainable De-velopment),
as well as founder of the French Female Board Members Association
‘Administration Moderne.’
• Hélène Molinari, Deputy Managing Director of the MEDEF (Movement of the
Enterprises of France, which is the largest union of employers in France). Super-visory
board Member of Lagardère Groupe.
• Isabelle Seillier, Chairman of JP Morgan France. Member of EMEA Executive
Commitee and EMEA IB inclusive Leadership Council (Diversity Council), Board
Member of Europlace Paris and of AFB, Danone and Club Méditerranée.
5. Women Be European Board Ready-ESSEC is a high level executive program
specifically designed for women, preparing to become a member of a Board, or
wishing to improve their contribution in an existing mandate or position. Estab-lished
in March 2011, this Executive program combines the teachings on the
fundamentals of what is modern and sustainable Corporate Governance and specific
coaching on the “GENDER” dimension: group coaching, testimonials, support net-works,
meetings of executive search firms, Collective research for mandates, train-ing
in social networking. For video of testimonials from women from the 2nd
Session (English translation in the comments section): http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=JnE8zEEINO8
6. For example, “The European Commission Recommendation on the role of
non-executive or supervisory directors of listed companies and on the committees
of the (supervisory) board,” Commission Recommendation 2005/162/EC of 15
February 2005 (OJ L 52, 25.2.2005, pp. 51–63). http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUri
Serv/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:052:0051:0063:EN:PDF

7. Ms Oghly was interviewed especially for this article. She is the President of
the MEDEF, Ile de France (Movement of the Enterprises of France, which is the
largest union of employers in France) and President of the French branch of
Femmes Chefs d’Entreprises (Association of Women Entrepreneurs), as well as the
Vice-President of the global branch (World Association of Women Entrepreneurs).
8. Bengt Jarrehult is the ‘Director of Innovation’ at SCA AB India (45000
employees, 60 countries). Quote taken from a LinkedIn forum discussion.
9. Aon Hewitt defines engagement “as the state of emotional and intellectual
involvement that motivates employees to do their best work.”
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR THE STUDY
Note to interviewee:
To facilitate the exercise: Numbering 1, 2, 3, 4 of categories = ADM/ Directors/
Politicians/Senior Public Function holders.
As the questionnaire is long it can be flexible in its use, according to the degree of
relevance of the questions to the profile of the interviewee; the questions dimmed
are the most important.
About you
What do you consider to be the major milestones in your career?
What drives you (what has driven you) to want to be a Non-Executive Director
(become a Director, enter politics, have a career in the civil service…)? Do you
have (have you ever had) a particular plan/goal, one which you hold (held) close to
your heart?
Women on Boards
Which elements favour (facilitate) the entrance of a woman into a Board? (1)
A. What role does the law play in the quotas for women in Boards?
B. How much influence does the professional background/ expertise /participation
in an Executive Committee have?
C. Are there any external factors which have helped (quotas in politics?) ?
D. What are the obstacles?
E. To what extent have your skills, expertise, background, academic qualifications
helped? (2, 3, 4)
The role of Women on Boards
What do you believe is the role of a Non-Executive Director ?
(The idea is to obtain an explanation of the different roles, and prompt if some are
“forgotten.” The goal is to obtain a general response, before going into detail.
Goal is to ascertain views on the relationship between control and vision for the
future).
A. Which one is the most important to you? Why?
B. Which one do you enjoy the most?
C. Which is the most difficult? Why?
In general are you more a woman of action or reflection? What are your
thoughts on the role of a CEO/Director in relation to action and reflection?
134

YOUR role on a Board
How do you conceive your role and mission? (2, 3, 4) What is the most difficult?
Are you confronted with short or long-term opposition and how do you deal
with this?
Do you consider yourself as the guardian of the sustainability of the company?
Do you think you contribute to change? Are there any changes which you feel
more strongly about?
(The objective is to see which level of importance is placed on Corporate Social
Responsibility, long-term control, ethics, prompt on these subjects if necessary).
Do you find decision making hard? How do you make your decisions (alone,
collectively, advisors)?
Who do you represent if you represent someone?
A. How much autonomy do you have in decision-making?
Do you align consistently with certain individuals or groups on a Board?
(We are exploring the ability to judge and make decisions autonomously in relation
to authority and hierarchy). (1, 3, 4)
Particular female qualities
Do you think women have particular qualities?
Generally they reply no but when they talk about the way they do and say things,
they point out that women are more this or that (communication, sensitivity to
human beings, rejection of open conflict, negotiation, courage, team spirit.…). If
yes, what are these qualities?
Do you think the fact that you are a woman has any effect on your role or your
stature?
Has the fact of being a woman led you to make certain decisions or choices
(including personal or career choices)?
Signification of Terms
What do the following terms mean to you: power/give example from your
professional life; authority/give example; politics/give example in-fluence/give
example; courage/give example? Are you able to distinguish or find a link
between them?
This will facilitate the responses a little to this difficult question. Often they will find
it difficult to explain the difference... It is important that they give examples as this
helps clarify ideas. Don’t force them to want to provide “the right definition.” We
are more interested in their personal inter-pretations. Try to identify implied positive
and negative connotations. This is the most important question).
Do you think power isolates?
A. What is the link between power and responsibility?
B. Which are the limits to power, legal or moral rules, which affect the exercising
of power?
Women & Level of importance of aspects
Which means do women (more particularly) have at their disposal to influence
the positions of those around them?
What is the importance of the formal and the informal?
The role of being connected/networks? Alliances?
135

Does complicity/solidarity among women exist?
Is there sometimes competition?
The relation to the Director (Managing Director, President, Party Chief) ?
What importance do rules have in an organization? (1) Within a Board?
Are there any (rules) which you adhere to particularly? Which ones?
Are there any rules which are not respected? Which ones? Why in your opinion?
What is your reaction?
What significance does a company’s ethical behavior have for you? (1,2)
Where do you stand concerning a conflict of powers?
Do you sometimes have the impression of being in a position of resistance by
for example being opposed to a decision or to other members of the Board (1), the
Directors (2), the Party (3), your hierarchy (4)? If yes, on which occasions? On
which points? What happens in general?
Power and courage, what does that evoke?
Do you think that the current system (broadly speaking) does not sufficiently
value courage (dilution of responsibilities)?
A. Being in a position of power (2, 4) or decision making (1, 2, 3), or of making
recommendations (1, 4)
B. What would you like to change in the system?
Any other comments?
REFERENCES
AON Hewitt (2012), “Trends in Global Employee Engagement,” AON Corporation.
http://www.aon.com/attachments/human-capital-consulting/2012_TrendsInGlobal
Engagement_Final_v11.pdf
Arcier, A. (2002), “Le quotient féminin de l’entreprise, question de dirigeants,”
136
Editions Village mondial.
Bertin-Mourot, B., & Laval, C. (2006), “Repenser l’équilibre hommes/femmes dans
la ressource managériale et dirigeante,” Les Echos Etudes.
Bramly, S., & Carminati-Rabasse, A. et al. (2012), “Pouvoirs(e)s, les nouveaux
équilibres femmes-hommes,” Eyrolles, May.
Bournois, F., Duval-Hamel, J., Roussillon, S., Scaringella, J.L., de La Tour d’Artaise,
T. et al. (2007), “Comités Exécutifs – Voyage au coeur de la dirigeance,”
Eyrolles.
Buffett, W. (2013), “Warren Buffett Is Bullish…on Women!,” Fortune Magazine,
20 May. http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/02/leadership/warren-buffett-women.
pr.fortune/index.html
Capitalcom (2012), “7ème BAROMÈTRE ANNUEL CAPITALCOM SUR LA
MIXITÉ – De plus en plus d’entreprises s’engagent : la fixation d’objectifs
chiffrés a doublé en 5 ans,” Press Release, March, http://www.capitalcom.fr/
Documents/Etude%20Femmes%202012.pdf
MIXITÉ DANS LES CONSEILS D’ADMINISTRATION DU CAC 40 – Le
lady boom s’essoufflerait-il déjà ?” Press Release, May 2012, http://www.
capitalcom.fr/Documents/CP%20Femmes%20AG%202012.pdf

MIXITÉ – D’une affaire de femmes à un enjeu de performance...,” Press
Release, June. http://www.capitalcom.fr/Documents/CP_8ème%20BARO METRE
%20ANNUEL%20CAPITALCOM%20SUR%20LA%20MIXIT_2013.pdf
Catalyst (2004), “The Bottom Line: Connecting Corporate Performance and Gender
137
Diversity.”
Catalyst (2007), “The Bottom Line: Corporate Performance and Women’s Repre-sentation
on Boards.”
Catalyst (2013), “Increasing Gender Diversity on Boards: Current Index of Formal
Approaches.”
Caye, J.-M., Teichmann, C., Strack, R., Haen, P., Bird, S., & Frick, G. (2011),
“Hard-Wiring Diversity into Your Business,” BCG Perspectives.
Charlotte (2012), “Stéréotypes et plafond de verre,” Blog Jeunes Professionnelles,
17/12, http://jeunesprofessionnelles.com/2012/12/stereotypes-et-plafond-de-verre/
Chevalier, C., & Khadir, S. (2012), “Les stéréotypes sur le genre” IMS-Entreprendre
pour la Cité, May.
Curtis, M., Schmid, C., & Struber, M. (2012), “Gender Diversity and Corporate
Performance,” Credit Suisse AG (Research Institute), August.
Davis, J., Donaldson, L., & Schoorman, F. (1997), “Toward a Stewardship Theory
of Management,” Academy of Management Review 22(1): 20–47.
De Beaufort, V. (2012), “Women and Power: Taboo, or New Corporate Governance
Model?,” ESSEC, September.
Dugas, L. (2007), “Grandir comme dirigeant,” in Comités Exécutifs – Voyage au
Coeur de la dirigeance, Eyrolles.
Dyrchs, S. and Strack, R. (2012), “Shattering the Glass Ceiling: An Analytical Ap-proach
to Advancing Women into Leadership Roles,” Boston Consulting Group
(BCG), August.
Egon Zehnder Inernational (2012), “Board Diversity: From Problem to Solutions,”
The FOCUS magazine, November.
Enriquez, E., & de Brouwer, D. (1997), “Les jeux du pouvoir et du désir dans
l’entreprise” (Power and Desire Games in the Company), Desclée de Brouwer.
Ethics & Boards (2014), “Place des Femmes dans les Conseils d’Administration et
de Surveillance”, Ethics & Boards Monitor, 5 June. http://www.ethicsandboards.
com/etudes/101-place-des-femmes-dans-les-conseils-d-administration-et-de-surveillance-
post-ag-2008-2013-1er-juin-2014
Europa (2005), “The European ‘COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION on the role
of non-executive or supervisory directors of listed companies and on the com-mittees
of the (supervisory) board,’” Commission Recommendation 2005/162/
EC of 15 February (OJ L 52, 25.2.2005, pp. 51–63). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:052:0051:0063:EN:PDF
Europa (2009), “Report on equality between men and women,” Report from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 77 final. http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009DC0077:EN:NOT
Europa (2010), “Strategy for the inequality between women and women – 2010–
2015,” Communication of the European Commission, 491 final. http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0491:EN:NOT

Europa (2011), “The Gender balance in business leadership,” Working document of
the European Commission SEC 246 final. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_
social/publications/2008/ke8108186_fr.pdf
Europa (2014), “Questions and Answers: What has the EU done for women? 50
years of EU action on Gender Equality for One Continent,” MEMO of the
European Commission – MEMO/14/156, April. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_
138
MEMO-14-156_en.htm
Europa (2013), “Cracking Europe’s Glass Ceiling: European Parliament backs Com-mission’s
Women on Boards proposal,” Press Release of the European Com-mission
– IP/13/1118, November. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-
13-1118_en.htm
Europa (2014), “Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council on improving the gender balance among directors of companies listed
on stock exchanges and related measures – Progress Report,” Council of the
European Union – 2012/0299 (COD), June. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/
doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%209864%202014%20REV%201
Ferrary, M. (2013), “Femina Index: Betting on Gender Diversity is a profitable SRI
Strategy,” Corporate Finance Review.
French Parliament (2011), “Loi sur la représentation équilibrée des femmes et des
hommes dans les conseils d’administration et de surveillance (Act on the
balanced representation of women and men on Boards of Directors),” Law
number 2011-103 of 27 January.
Gilbert, S. (2012), “Femmes d’Altitude,” Les Belles Lettre, March.
Gladman, K., & Lamb, M. (2013), “GMI Ratings’ 2013 Women on Boards Sur-vey,”
GMI Ratings, April.
Heidrick & Struggles (2011), “Challenging board performance – European Corporate
Governance Report,” 01101PBTSMI59, p. 40.
KMU FORSCHUNG AUSTRIA (Austrian Institute for SME Research) (2009),
“Gender Quality Initiatives – Annex 3: Company case studies.”
Landel, M. (2009), “Rapport annuel de la diversité,” Sodexo.
Lipman, V. (2013), “Why Are So Many Employees Disengaged?,” FORBES, “Lead-ership”
Channel, 18 January, http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/
01/18/why-are-so-many-employees-disengaged/
Lunghi, C. (2001), “Et si les Femmes réinventaient le travail,” Editions L’Organi-sation,
p. 201.
Lord Davies of Abersoch (2012), “Women on boards,” UK Department for Busi-ness,
Innovation & Skills, March. http://www.bis.gov.uk//assets/biscore/busi-ness-
law/docs/w/12-p135-women-on-boards-2012.pdf
Lord Davies of Abersoch (2013), “Women on boards,” UK Department for Busi-ness,
Innovation & Skills, April. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/182602/bis-13-p135-women-on-boards-
2013.pdf
Lord Davies of Abersoch (2014), “Women on boards: Davies Review Annual Report
2014,” UK Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, March. https://www.
gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/320000/bis-women-
on-boards-2014.pdf

McKinsey & Company, “Women Matter,” McKinsey & Company Studies: 2007,
139
2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013.
MSW Research and Dale Carnegie Training (2012), “What Drives Employee En-gagement
and Why It Matters,” October, http://www.dalecarnegie.com/imap/
white_papers/employee_engagement_white_paper/
Persche, A., & Perdue, J. (2011), “Women and the Paradox of Power: 8 Keys for
Transforming Business Culture,” Germane Consulting/Braithwaite Innovation
Group.
Rankin, J. (2013), “Women Missing Out on Senior Boardroom Roles,” The Guard-ian,
11 December. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/11/women-missing-
out-on-senior-boardroom-roles
Rocoplan, V., & Vanbremeersch, C. (2011), Oser être la chef, Chapter 12: “Develop
Your Political Sense,” Leducseditions, January.
Rocoplan, V. (2012), “Les Stéréotypes,” Elles réussissent (la newsletter de Valérie
Rocoplan), No. 4, July.
Rothery, G. (2014) “Women Now Make Up 20.7pc of FTSE 100 Board Member,”
Business and Leadership, 26 March.
Sarfati, A.-C., & Gattegno, H. (2007), “Femmes au pouvoir ; récits et confidences,”
Stock, 10 October.
Sealy, R., & Vinnicombe, S. (2012), “The Female FTSE Board Report 2012,” Cran-field
International Centre for Women Leaders (Cranfield University). http://
www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/dinamic-content/research/documents/2012
femalftse.pdf
Sealy, R., & Vinnicombe, S. (2013), “The Female FTSE Board Report 2013,” Cran-field
International Centre for Women Leaders (Cranfield University). http://
www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/dinamic-content/media/Research/Research%20
Centres/CICWL/FTSEReport2013.pdf
Stanford Clayman Institute for Gender Research (2013), “Sheryl Sandberg at Stan-ford
4/2/13,” video of interview with Sheryl Sandberg in April: http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=f9-d_FRjwYM
Stone, P., Cornet, A., & Cusumano, C. (2012), “Les quotas,” L’encyclopédie des
diversités, Chapter 28.
Vinnicombe, S., Doldor, E., & Turner, C. (2014), “The Female FTSE Board Report
2014: Crossing the Finish Line,” Cranfield International Centre for Women
Leaders (Cranfield University). http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/dinamic-content/
research/ftse/The%20Female%20FTSE%20Board%20Report%202014.
pdf
Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi and Malone (2010), “Evidence for a Collec-tive
Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups,” Sciencexpress,
30 September.
Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2012), “A Study in Leadership: Women Do It Better than
Men,” Zenger Folkman, http://www.zfco.com/media/articles/ZFCo.WP.Women
BetterThanMen.033012.pdf
Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2012), “Are Women Better Leaders than Men?,” HBR
Blog Network, 15/03/2012: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/03/a_study_in_leader
ship_women_do.html

Viviane de Beaufort is a Professor at the leading European Business School ESSEC,
where she is also the Director of the law faculty and Co-Director of the European
Centre Law and Economics. She holds a Doctorate in European Community Law
from the University of Paris I-La Sorbonne. Viviane de Beaufort is the author of
several publications and conferences on Corporate Law, where her main research
interests lie in the fields of Corporate Governance and Institutional Issues. She is
also actively involved in European Public Affairs, being an integral member of
several Think-Tanks, as well as an experienced and respected lobbyist, notably
specializing in the areas of Competition law and Corporate Governance Issues. As
the creator and Academic director of Women-ESSEC Programmes (including
“Women, Be European Board Ready”), created with the support of the Women’s
Forum, she is committed to the progression of Women, Gender and diversity Issues.
Viviane is a member of the Global Board Ready Women LinkedIn database. Con-sidered
an expert in the fields of Corporate Governance and Gender Issues, she is
continuously engaged in academic research on these issues.
E-mail: Beaufort@essec.fr
Twitter: @vdbeaufort
Linked-in: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/viviane-de-beaufort/8/720/aa
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/viviane.debeaufort
Blog: https://sites.google.com/a/essec.edu/viviane-de-beaufort/
Lucy Summers is a recent graduate of the University of Queensland in Australia,
holding a degree in Law (LL.B) and a B.A (majoring in Economics and Advanced
French). She spent two years in France as an exchange student at the elite French
school of Political Science (“Sciences-Po”), as well as undertaking courses from the
MBA program (“Grande Ecole” Program) at the leading European Business School,
ESSEC. Since July 2012, she has been heavily involved in the research on the legal
and economic aspects of Corporate Governance and the gender dimension whilst a
legal research assistance for Viviane de Beaufort. She was one of the collaborators of
the study “Women and Power,” which was launched at the International “Women’s
Forum 2012.” As “Programme Co-ordinator,” Lucy was in charge of the organiza-tion
and the 3rd session of the Executive Programme “Women Be European Board
Ready” at ESSEC, which took place from October 2012 to January 2013.
140

Women on boards - Article de Beaufort&Summers

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to Women on boards - Article de Beaufort&Summers

Similar to Women on boards - Article de Beaufort&Summers (20)

More from Viviane de Beaufort

More from Viviane de Beaufort (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Women on boards - Article de Beaufort&Summers